- From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:48:18 -0600
- To: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
- Cc: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, simonp@opera.com
Anne, Thanks for the update from Opera (haven't had time to test/read up on it lately). I'm all for restricting scriptability on images. As for interactivity: FWIW, the suggestion that an image is non-interactive contradicts Simon's suggestion [1] with respect to the usemap attribute. I would suggest that the map is what is interactive here, and not the image itself. What about animated GIFs - what if some user agent allows you to restart/freeze/loop the animated GIF? That is technically interaction and by my simple definition it would not be allowed on an image... what about panning? That's interactivity too... So perhaps "non-interactive" is too restrictive a term? Regards, Jeff [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0137.html On 1/25/08, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:26:35 +0100, Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Whether or not script should be allowed to run inside an "image" (like > > SVG) is another question that I would like to bring to the forefront. > > Opera does not run scripts for SVG embedded through the HTML <img> > element, or the CSS 'content', 'background-image', and similar properties > for the reasons Boris mentioned. > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > <http://annevankesteren.nl/> > <http://www.opera.com/> >
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 17:48:27 UTC